Modeling Time (MTS-4: Towards A Mathematical Theory of Spirituality Based on Advaita)

[Guest guest]

Nameste Chittaranjan-JI

> But I do not believe you are right in saying that local time stands

> still when Cosmic time marches on. Ishvara is the Inner Controller,

> and the local time of a jiva cannot violate the Cosmic time of

> Ishvara. That is why there is a sense of time having passed even when

> we are in deep sleep.

 

If you read my previous posts, I said that time is a "Lower Nature"

or "Field" of the Lord as per the defination in BG 7.4. Thus it is

an "object of knowledge" like happiness ,sadness, ignorance etc which

the Jiva associates/superimposes on the self. This is my point of view.

 

Please explain your point of view on Time more fully. I think you said

that "Time is Eternal. Eternal Time is Mahakali" which started this

discussion. I would like to hear your view on why Time is not a mental

concept (thus a object of knowledge per BG 7.4), which is the key

point since If it is a mental concept, it is a compound (dependent on

the mind)and a compound cannot be eternal.

 

My thoughts on this can be found on:

advaitin/message/28255

advaitin/message/28331

advaitin/message/28343

 

 

rgds

Hersh

[Guest guest]

There have been several interesting postings recently on this topic. At issue

is the question whether there is a concept of time for the jeeva that is

distinct from the “cosmic time” of Ishwara. Br.Vinyaka ji asks how there could

be such a distinction when the jeevas are a part of the Total. In the same vein,

Chittaranjan ji questions if the jeeva can violate the cosmic time of Ishwara.

 

While there is only one cosmic time for the totality and all jeevas in it, the

experience of that time by jeevas can differ depending on the circumstances.

This does not contradict the fact that jeevas are part of the Totality or in any

sense violate the sanctity of cosmic time of Ishwara. After all, in general, a

jeeva’s experience of this creation is very different from that of the Creator,

and time is but one aspect of that experience.

 

In a previous posting I quoted a remark by Bhagavan Ramana to the effect that

the experience of time is dependent on a jeeva’s upadhis. The experience for one

awakening from a coma or anesthesia is that no time has elapsed. It is my

understanding that the same is true during the typically short periods of

dreamless sleep we have. Einstein’s theory shows how the experienced time can

change markedly with motion in space.

 

In a future posting we will see how a jeeva’s experienced time changes with its

spiritual detachment following a relation that is remarkably like the one in

Einstein’s theory relating time dilation to speed in space. We will also have

an opportunity to discuss at that time what other interpretations we can give to

the notion of “experienced time”.

 

Hari Om!

 

- Raju Chidambaram

[Guest guest]

Namesta Chittaranjan-Ji

 

I am also a bit confused with the following statement of yours:

> "Time is not a mental concept because it is there in deep sleep

when the mind is absent."

 

In deep sleep I am not aware of time (hence time is not there in deep

sleep). I start being aware of time only when I start dreaming or get

up (in the waking state). This is when my ego or "I" becomes

operative. In deep sleep my "I" sleeps under the blanket of ignorance

and is not aware of time or space. So if time comes about when "I"

comes about (dreaming or waking states), time is in my mind as the "I-

sense" is in my mind (I" being defined as my first mental concept "I-

am").

 

Please let me have your views on this.

 

rgds

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri.Hersh-ji,

 

Pardon me for my intervention…

 

 

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin@g...> wrote:

>

> Namesta Chittaranjan-Ji

>

> I am also a bit confused with the following statement of yours:

> > "Time is not a mental concept because it is there in deep sleep

> when the mind is absent."

>

> In deep sleep I am not aware of time (hence time is not there in

deep

> sleep). I start being aware of time only when I start dreaming or

get

> up (in the waking state). This is when my ego or "I" becomes

> operative. In deep sleep my "I" sleeps under the blanket of

ignorance

> and is not aware of time or space. So if time comes about when "I"

> comes about (dreaming or waking states), time is in my mind as

the "I-

> sense" is in my mind (I" being defined as my first mental

concept "I-

> am").

>

 

Time is very much exist in deep sleep too.

 

How?

 

Do you accept there are three states of waking, dream and deep-sleep

or not?

 

If so, deep sleep state (just like other state) has two "events" ;

events of starting and ending. Don't you think so?

 

It follows that, events are nothing but points in Time.

 

Even if one goes as far as arguing starting event(of deep sleep) is

the event of waking state only; then one can not overcome other

difficulty. If there is no time in deep-sleep state, how can it ends

and one will wakeup anyways?

 

Thus, if one does not aware of time in deep sleep, it does not mean

time doesn't exist as such. It simply means, we do not perceive it.

 

Existence and perception are two different things. To exist is to

perceive is vijnAnavAdin's position and vEdAnta rejects it.

 

Thus, three states of waking,dream and dreamless, are NOT states of

reality as such but states of perception of single reality only.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri.Chittaranjan-ji,

> Your first sentence is 'There is only Brahman'. Then you say that

the

> time concept is related to earth. Where did the earth come from if

> there is only Brahman? Wherever the earth came from is also where

> time came from, the only difference between them being that you see

> the earth with the senses and you don't see time with the senses.

> Some schools of Vedanta say that time is grasped by the sakshi

alone,

> but I do not remember having read Advaita's position on this.

>

 

F.Y.I , Dvaita school is that `some school'.

 

For that matter, all perception are grasped by sAkshI only. Some

perception are apprehended through aid of jada indriya-s and some

others are direct. sAkshi being chaitanya swarUpa , only it is the

active agent in all apprehensions.

 

Items in direct apprehentions are sukha, dukkha, Andnda, abhAva etc;

apart from current topic of kAla.

 

Regards,

Srinivas.

[Guest guest]

Namaste Srinivas-Ji

> Even if one goes as far as arguing starting event(of deep sleep) is

> the event of waking state only; then one can not overcome other

> difficulty. If there is no time in deep-sleep state, how can it ends

> and one will wakeup anyways?

 

I am talking of my SUBJECTIVE awareness of time (my "local time") which

is not there in deep sleep. I fully agree with you that there is

always "Cosmic" time present when I wake up.

 

The fact that in deep sleep I am not subjectively aware of time but

that time is still there when I wake up can only be explained (at least

to my mind)if there are two levels of time (cosmic and local). I would

like to understand how in the absence of a "local time" concept it can

be explained why I did not EXPERIENCE time in deep sleep as In deep

sleep my mind was a blank and I was not aware of time. It is only when

I get up that I see that the world is moving on as it always has. Thus

my "local time" was covered by a blanket of ignorance but when my ego

awoke, I set my mental clock in tune with the cosmic clock.

 

How can you explain this if there is only Cosmic (and no local) time.

This is what I seek to understand.

 

 

rgds

Hersh

[Guest guest]

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p>

wrote:

>

> Time is very much exist in deep sleep too.

>

> How?

>

> Do you accept there are three states of waking, dream and deep-

sleep

> or not?

>

> If so, deep sleep state (just like other state) has two "events" ;

> events of starting and ending. Don't you think so?

>

> It follows that, events are nothing but points in Time.

>

> Even if one goes as far as arguing starting event(of deep sleep)

is

> the event of waking state only; then one can not overcome other

> difficulty. If there is no time in deep-sleep state, how can it

ends

> and one will wakeup anyways?

>

> Thus, if one does not aware of time in deep sleep, it does not

mean

> time doesn't exist as such. It simply means, we do not perceive it.

>

> Existence and perception are two different things. To exist is to

> perceive is vijnAnavAdin's position and vEdAnta rejects it.

>

> Thus, three states of waking,dream and dreamless, are NOT states

of

> reality as such but states of perception of single reality only.

>

> Regards,

> Srinivas.

 

Namaste,

 

Yes time does exist when one is in deep sleep but only for those in

illusion. Not for the jiva in deep sleep. Just as when one is in the

dream state, the waking state doesn't exist for that jiva. When one

is in samadhi the three states don't exist at all, and at moksha

they never ever did exist..............ONS...Tony.

[Guest guest]

Greetings Chitta !

 

Very interesting discussion going on the subject of 'Time'....

 

AND here is what Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi says on this subject :

 

Ramana: Time is only an idea. There is only the Reality. Whatever you

think it is, it looks like that. If you call it time, it is time. If

you call it existence, it is existence, and so on. After calling it

time, you divide it into days and nights, months, years, hours,

minutes, etc. Time is immaterial for the Path of Knowledge.

 

Ramana: What is time? It posits a state, one's recognition of it, and

also the changes which affect it. The interval between two states is

called time. A state cannot come into being unless the mind calls it

into existence. The mind must be held by the Self. If the mind is not

made use of there is no concept of time. Time and space are in the

mind but one's true state lies beyond the mind. The question of time

does not arise at all to the one established in one's true nature.

 

Ramana Maharshi (1879-1950)

 

As an aside , i would like to recommend a book written by Noble

Laurette Amartya Kumar Sen ! Professor Sen , an economist under

whom i studied in the Delhi School of Economics , used to jokingly

remark " if all the economists were to sit around a table for a

discussion , one would never reach a conclusion" i am beginning to

think is it true of our Advaitins also ? smile :-)

 

The Title of the book is " The Argumentative Indian"

 

In this book, Sen Discusses about the two contrapuntal ideas of

India -- the "broader integrationist idea of India celebrating

argument, plurality and heterodoxy opposed to the small exclusivist

idea of India promoted by a narrowly Hindu view of India" as espoused

by Hindutva activists.

 

 

"There is a vigorous tradition of argument in India that goes back to

our history and mythology," Sen Writes.

 

Do YOU REMEMBER The nine hour non-stop speech of LATE Shri V.

Krishna Menon at the UN - what would nair -ji call that speech - LONG

OR MARATHON OR never ending like the epic Mahabharata ?

 

love and blessings

 

 

 

 

 

advaitin, "Chittaranjan Naik"

<chittaranjan_naik> wrote:

> Time is not a mental concept because it is there in deep sleep when

> the mind is absent.

>

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Srinivasan-ji,

 

advaitin, "Srinivas Kotekal" <kots_p> wrote:

> F.Y.I , Dvaita school is that `some school'.

>

> For that matter, all perception are grasped by sAkshI only. Some

> perception are apprehended through aid of jada indriya-s and some

> others are direct. sAkshi being chaitanya swarUpa , only it is the

> active agent in all apprehensions.

>

> Items in direct apprehentions are sukha, dukkha, Andnda, abhAva etc;

> apart from current topic of kAla.

 

 

Thank you for the clarification Srinivasanji. Let me hasten to add that

even in Advaita all perception is grasped by the sakshi only. When I

said that the senses grasp objects like apple etc, it is the sakshi

along with the mind and senses that go out and reach the object.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Dear AdiMa,

 

advaitin, "adi_shakthi16" <adi_shakthi16>

wrote:

> AND here is what Bhagwan Ramana Maharishi says on this subject:

> Ramana: Time is only an idea. There is only the Reality.

> Whatever you think it is, it looks like that. If you call

> it time, it is time. If you call it existence, it is

> existence, and so on.

 

Is existence only an idea? Existence is Brahman Itself, so how can it

be only an idea? Likewise, time is also not a mere idea.

 

Time, existence, world, etc which are mere ideas are to be discarded

as the Self, is what Sri Ramana Maharshi means.

 

We have to see Sri Ramana Maharshi's statement in the context of the

path of atma-vichara which he prescribes as the one direct means to

Truth. That is why he says:

 

"Time is immaterial for the Path of Knowledge."

 

Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi never encouraged discussions about the

tattvas. Why? Because tattva-jnana is not easy, it takes maybe a

lifetime, maybe even many lifetimes, to study. It is not meant for

this age except for the most pure-minded and tenacious sadhaka.

Bhagavan used to turn the attention of people away from all

discussions about the world to the one method of contemplation on the

Self. His remarks about the world, about time, even about existence,

has to be taken in this sense.

 

> If the mind is not made use of there is no concept of time.

> Time and space are in the mind but one's true state lies beyond

> the mind. The question of time does not arise at all to the one

> established in one's true nature.

 

Time, existence, and the world that Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi is

talking about (above) is not time, existence, or the world but the

conception of time, existence or the world as it appears in the mind.

Bhagavan is speaking about the 'concept of time'. Bhagavan is

speaking about the 'question of time' arising for a jnani.

 

The Veda itself says: 'not by study of the Vedas does one get

knowledge'. That statement has a specific context and goal and it

does not mean that all of us have to discard the Veda in our efforts

to obtain atma-jnana.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

Namaste Sri Hersh-ji,

 

advaitin, "hersh_b" <hershbhasin@g...> wrote:

> In deep sleep I am not aware of time (hence time is not there

> in deep sleep).

 

Okay let's follow your method and see what happens. In deep sleep you

are not aware of being conscious. Hence consciousness is not there in

deep sleep!

 

You are trying to grasp time with an instrument - the mind - which is

not the appropriate instrument for grasping time.

 

What is the validity of the statement that all things exist only in the

mind? Is it because of the mere fact that the mind says it is itself

the basis of all valid knowledge? What is the deciding criteria by

which the mind appropriates to itself the position of being the ground

of existence? The mind itself exists in the ground of Self, and the

sakshi from which truth is to be determined is not in the mind but is

the Self 'behind' the mind. The deciding criteria must come from the

innate meanings that lie in the Self (the yathartha) and not from mere

ideas of what constitutes valid knowledge. What these deciding criteria

are is the subject matter of Vedantic epsitemology. It are called the

pramanas.

 

Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji has provided the correct argument against your

position that time does not exist in deep sleep. It is essentially the

same argument I had tried to present in the form of conundrums that

follow from the position that time is absent in deep sleep.

 

I'm afraid you are mixing up the distinction between knowledge and the

object of knowledge just as the Vijnanavadins do. Thought and what is

thought about are not the same. What is thought about is the object,

and the truth of the object thought about is decided by a pramana - a

valid means of knowledge. The existence of an object is not given

merely by the fact of it being in my thought or not being in my

thought. I might have thought of a six-headed hydra two moments ago,

but it did not exist merely because I thought of it. I didn't think of

the Statue of Liberty yesterday, but the Statue of Liberty was existing

yesterday even though I didn't think of it. This world is created by

Ishvara and the existence of things in this world must be decided by a

valid pramana. It is not merely drishti-shristi unless one happens to

be God. Tat-vam-asi relates to the Self that is within us as well as

outside us, it does not denote the jiva that is equipped with a mind

that has no clear idea of what it itself is. Before one decides the

validity of the existence of time, one needs to get the pramanas in

order. Otherwise all things would be what the mind thinks it to be.

Then one might as well discard Vedanta.

 

Warm regards,

Chittaranjan

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Hersh-ji,

>

> advaitin, "hersh_b"

> <hershbhasin@g...> wrote:

>

> > In deep sleep I am not aware of time (hence time

> is not there

> > in deep sleep).

>

> Okay let's follow your method and see what happens.

> In deep sleep you

> are not aware of being conscious. Hence

> consciousness is not there in

> deep sleep!

>

> You are trying to grasp time with an instrument -

> the mind - which is

> not the appropriate instrument for grasping time.

>

> What is the validity of the statement that all

> things exist only in the

> mind? Is it because of the mere fact that the mind

> says it is itself

> the basis of all valid knowledge? What is the

> deciding criteria by

> which the mind appropriates to itself the position

> of being the ground

> of existence? The mind itself exists in the ground

> of Self, and the

> sakshi from which truth is to be determined is not

> in the mind but is

> the Self 'behind' the mind. The deciding criteria

> must come from the

> innate meanings that lie in the Self (the yathartha)

> and not from mere

> ideas of what constitutes valid knowledge. What

> these deciding criteria

> are is the subject matter of Vedantic epsitemology.

> It are called the

> pramanas.

>

> Sri Srinivas Kotekal-ji has provided the correct

> argument against your

> position that time does not exist in deep sleep. It

> is essentially the

> same argument I had tried to present in the form of

> conundrums that

> follow from the position that time is absent in deep

> sleep.

>

> I'm afraid you are mixing up the distinction between

> knowledge and the

> object of knowledge just as the Vijnanavadins do.

> Thought and what is

> thought about are not the same. What is thought

> about is the object,

> and the truth of the object thought about is decided

> by a pramana - a

> valid means of knowledge. The existence of an object

> is not given

> merely by the fact of it being in my thought or not

> being in my

> thought. I might have thought of a six-headed hydra

> two moments ago,

> but it did not exist merely because I thought of it.

> I didn't think of

> the Statue of Liberty yesterday, but the Statue of

> Liberty was existing

> yesterday even though I didn't think of it. This

> world is created by

> Ishvara and the existence of things in this world

> must be decided by a

> valid pramana. It is not merely drishti-shristi

> unless one happens to

> be God. Tat-vam-asi relates to the Self that is

> within us as well as

> outside us, it does not denote the jiva that is

> equipped with a mind

> that has no clear idea of what it itself is. Before

> one decides the

> validity of the existence of time, one needs to get

> the pramanas in

> order. Otherwise all things would be what the mind

> thinks it to be.

> Then one might as well discard Vedanta.

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

>

>

> How is one sure that all pramanas are not merely the

products of thought, the distinction of some means of

knowledge being valid or invalid being merely the

declaration of the mind, itself lacking intrinsic

certainity. Of course, the Advaita epstemology deals

with the concept of there being six valid pramanas,

which is merely analytical, not being helpful in

understanding one's true nature. Ramana Maharishi did

not elaborate on all these theories of pramanas, which

are only philosophicl. The absence of time in deep

sleep is only the declaration of the time-bound waking

state whose testimony is not valid. Unless the three

states are found to be unreal, one cannot be sure that

time is unreal.

withr regards,

Sankarraman

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.

http://farechase.

[Guest guest]

--- Chittaranjan Naik <chittaranjan_naik

wrote:

> Namaste Sri Hersh-ji,

>

> advaitin, "hersh_b"

> <hershbhasin@g...> wrote:

>

>

> > Suppose Jiva A and Jiva B are two computers on a

> network.

> > Ishvera is the server.

>

> The two computers on the network are separate from

> the server. Jiva A

> and Jiva B are not separate from Ishvara. The

> analogy is

> inappropriate. The two computers on the network and

> the server are

> all inert - jada. Jiva A and Jiva B and Ishvara are

> not jada - their

> essence is chaitanya. Again the analogy is

> inappropriate.

>

> The knowledge of Time is obtained through

> Self-knowledge. Self-

> knowledge is obtained through atma-vichara -

> contemplation on the

> Self that is Chaitanya. Analogies are helpful in the

> beginning, and

> they are obstructions later. They have to be

> discarded in the

> focussed directnedness of attention to the Self.

>

>

> > Time is a file (say a word document) on the

> network

> > server. Both A and B are reading the word file. If

> A

> > tries to delete this file, the server will

> disallow it

> > as B also has it open. So it is impossible to

> delete

> > the file i.e. go beyond the conept of time if

> there is

> > only "cosmic" time.

> > However if both A and B copy the file locally,

> each can

> > delete his own copy of the file. Hence if we have

> the

> > concept of "local" time, we can go beyond time.

> > This is what I want to convey.

>

> Deleting is an action. Self-knowledge, in which the

> nature of Time is

> known, is not an action or the result of action.

> Brahma-jnana is to

> know the truth as it is. Why should one delete

> 'local time' and try

> to go beyond it? In atma-vichara, the sadhaka only

> strives to know

> the truth - simply as it is - and not try to do

> something with time

> or with the world. Let all things be as they are,

> let us know what

> they are. Vedanta says that to know what they are,

> one should know

> the Self for the truth of all things is found in the

> Self.

>

> Warm regards,

> Chittaranjan

> Dear Chittaranjanji,

>

> Apropos your suggestion that once the particular

time is destroyed by a particular individual it is

still available in the totality, may it not be that

the totality is also a projection of some individual,

being essentially subjective, the idea of there being

a common Iswara itself being an error. Yogavasihta

frequently introduces the idea of the doctrine of

eka-jiva vada, solipsism. Infact true knowledge is not

Time but Timeless.

With regards,

Sankarraman

>

>

 

 

 

 

 

FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click.

http://farechase.

[Guest guest]

My question:

In deep sleep I am not aware of time (hence time is not there

in deep sleep).

 

Shri Chitta-Ji: Your answer

Okay let's follow your method and see what happens. In deep sleep you

are not aware of being conscious. Hence consciousness is not there in

deep sleep!

 

 

Exactly my point. Shri Chitta you have taken up only one thread of my

argument (as pertains to the Jiva). Please try to understand my

argument in totality which includes the real "I" (atma) and the

false "I" (jiva) .

 

There are two entities involved. The first is the Atma, which has

the "Cosmic" time and is always conscious. The second is the "Jiva"

with his "local time". As you correctly pointed out if there is

no "time" in deep sleep, the Jiva should conclude that there is no

consciousness in Deep Sleep. This should lead him to the source of

the false "I". Since the this logic makes me conclude that "I" would

be devoid of consciousness, this thing that I call "I" cannot be the

real "I".

 

As per Bhawan Ramana Maharishi he should realize that such an

ignorant "I" cannot be what the scriptures refer to or the wise

affirm. "I" am beyond sleep; "I" must be here and now, and must be

what I was all along in sleep and dream also, unaffected by the

qualities of the three states. "I" must therefore be the unqualified

substratum underlying these three states.

 

Hence this argument can actually lead the false "I" to find out the

real "I"

 

 

also you ask:

>What is the validity of the statement that all things exist only in

the

mind?

1) Because everything arises when "I" wake up. When my ego comes into

action/ become operative. Ego is mind being the first thought of

mind :I am"

 

2) Statements from qualified people:

 

a)quotes from Vivakananda were provided at

advaitin/message/28331

In his lectures there are numerous statements to this effect. If I

get the time I will compile the same

 

b) Ramana Mharshi has also said this many times:AdiMa has just

provided a quote

atadvaitin/message/28488

 

 

Finally you take a very strong stance from only one viewpoint- The

atma "The mind itself exists in the ground of Self, and the sakshi

from which truth is to be determined is not in the mind but is

the Self 'behind' the mind." Very true. but we are still getting

there. Till we reach, the Jiva is not a non entity. It is a ghost

true but it is the only way we have of returning to the source.

 

rgds

Hersh

[Guest guest]

Dear Chitta :

 

Do you recall that famous dialogue between Sage YagnaValkya and

Gargi , the great woman philosopher , in the Brihadarnayaka

upanishad ?

 

Here is how Gargi warns Yajnavalkya: "As a warrior from Kashi or

Videha rises with a bow and arrow to fell the opponent, I rise to

fell you with two questions."

 

What were those two questions ?

 

For her first question, Gargi asks , "that which is above heaven and

below the earth, which is also between heaven and earth, which is the

same through past, present and future, in what is that woven, warp

and woof?" Yajnavalkya answers easily, "in space."

 

For her second question, Gargi asks, "in what is space itself woven,

warp and woof?" Yajnavalkya's answer: "the imperishable."

 

and if Gargi had not persisted with her line of questioning, Sage

Yagnavalkya would have never come out and revealed the true nature

of 'Atman'....

 

" warp and woof " -a favorite phrase used in Tantric circles ...

 

what is warp and woof? In the art of weaving, warp names the

lengthwise threads that give structure to the cloth; woof denotes the

crossing threads that give design and color. Taken together, the

expression "warp and woof" means the very fiber or essence of a thing.

 

So , Chitta, you know my Gurudeva is from the Tantric Tradition and

also a worshipper of Goddess 'Kali' and as such i do believe in all

the 36 principles or tattvas . ?( INCLUDING "KALA " )

 

Chitta , you state :

 

( Bhagavan Ramana Maharshi never encouraged discussions about the

tattvas."

 

True ! and here is why ! .

 

Sri Ramana said : Just as it is futile to examine the garbage that

has to be collectively thrown away, so it is fruitless for one who is

to know himself to count the numbers and scrutinise the properties of

the tattvas that are veiling the Self, instead of collectively

throwing them all away.

 

Indian philosophers have split the phenomenal world up into many

different entities or categories which are called tattvas. Different

schools of thought have different lists of tattvas, some being

inordinately long and complicated. Bhagavan encouraged his devotees

to disregard all such classifications on the grounds that, since the

appearance of the world is itself an illusion, examining its

component parts one by one is an exercise in futility. "

 

Chitta, you write :

 

The Veda itself says: 'not by study of the Vedas does one get

knowledge'. That statement has a specific context and goal and it

does not mean that all of us have to discard the Veda in our efforts

to obtain atma-jnana.

 

Yes ! Bhagwan himself says " It is said in all the scriptures that to

attain liberation one should make the mind subside. After realising

that mind control is the ultimate injunction of the scriptures, it is

pointless to read scriptures endlessly. In order to know the mind, it

is necessary to know who one is. How [can one know who one is] by

researching instead in the scriptures? One should know oneself

through one's own eye of knowledge. For [a man called] Rama to know

himself to be Rama, is a mirror necessary? One's self exists within

the five sheaths, whereas the scriptures are outside them. This self

is the one to be enquired into. Therefore, researching in the

scriptures, ignoring even the five sheaths, is futile. Enquiring 'Who

am I that am in bondage?' and knowing one's real nature is alone

liberation. " Yes ! " swarupa " - that is the key word - from atma

chintanam ( self-inquiry) comes knowledge of atma swarupa !

 

we are blessed with two eyes ! the ''eyes of the scriptures " -

Shastrasya chaksuhu ! The other eye is " jnana drishti " ( eye of

knowledge) !

 

but after a point, we have to foget all that we have learned then

only true knowledge dawns !

 

In the words of a famous Zen saying,

 

"Before you study Zen, mountains are mountains and rivers are rivers;

while you are studying Zen, mountains are no longer mountains and

rivers are no longer rivers; but once you have had enlightenment

mountains are once again mountains and rivers again rivers. "

 

in any case , just ponder on this verse from Srimad Bhagvat gita

 

sarvatah pani-padam tat

sarvato 'ksi-siro-mukham

sarvatah srutimal loke

sarvam avrtya tisthati ( ch 13 - verse 14 )

 

Everywhere are His hands and legs, His eyes and faces, and He hears

everything. In this way the Supersoul exists.

 

in the next verse , it is said

 

sarvendriya-gunabhasam

sarvendriya-vivarjitam

asaktam sarva-bhrc caiva

nirgunam guna-bhoktr ca ( chapter 13, verse 15)

 

 

The Supersoul is the original source of all senses, yet He is without

senses. He is unattached, although He is the maintainer of all living

beings. He transcends the modes of nature, and at the same time He is

the master of all modes of material nature.

 

Chitta - this is the classic 'adhyArOpa apavAda.'

 

that is why i particularly mentioned the Ramana quote to bring into

focus this type of argumentation ! smile!

 

 

love and blessings

[Guest guest]

advaitin, aiyers@c... wrote:

> While there is only one cosmic time for the totality

> and all jeevas in it, the experience of that time by

> jeevas can differ depending on the circumstances.

> This does not contradict the fact that jeevas are part

> of the Totality or in any sense violate the sanctity of

> cosmic time of Ishwara. After all, in general, a jeeva's

> experience of this creation is very different from that

> of the Creator, and time is but one aspect of that

> experience.

 

 

Raju,

 

I wonder if Einstein's theory of relativity allows for

any kind of cosmic time for Ishwara. Does Einstein's

theory not show that all time is relative to the observer?

Could Ishwara be considered an observer? Would

not the choice of a particular perspective limit him

in a way that is incompatible with being Ishwara?

(This may be so even though Ishwara already has a

bit more of a 'personality' or 'jivahood' than Brahman.)

 

In other words, it seems to me that any notion of time

requires a particularization, and hence limitation,

which is inappropriate for Ishwara. That is, he has

to decide that this event occurs at this time, and another

at that time. This seems arbitrary to me for Ishwara.

 

> In a previous posting I quoted a remark by Bhagavan

> Ramana to the effect that the experience of time is

> dependent on a jeeva's upadhis. The experience for one

> awakening from a coma or anesthesia is that no time

> has elapsed. It is my understanding that the same is

> true during the typically short periods of dreamless sleep

> we have. Einstein's theory shows how the experienced time

> can change markedly with motion in space.

 

This seems to confirm what I just said. Time is inseparable

from the experience of it. Hence it must be particularized

by that experience, which would make Ishwara just another

Jiva. We can't have that!

 

Hari Om!

Benjamin